John Oliver did a piece on climate change last night and had Bill Nye the Science Guy help drive the message home:

The whole segment is pretty funny and worth a watch if you appreciate John Oliver's humor.

It reminded me of the Burning House parable from the Lotus Sutra. The TL;DR version is that this rich man's mansion is burning down, and he is having trouble getting his children out because they're all preoccupied with their games. He actually tells them, "The house is on f****** fire!", but they don't listen. So he tells them that there are three kinds of carts outside the house, and if they will just come out, he will give them each whichever they want. At this, the children come out of the house, and the rich man gives them all an ox cart beyond their wildest imagination. (You can read a translation of it here - see p. 56 . Its one of the most famous parables in the Mahayana.)

So, as funny as Bill Nye's demonstration was, will this approach to climate change work. The tone of climate change reports and news reporting has increasingly taken on the tone of, "The Planet's on F****** Fire!" and I'm not sure its getting people out of their stupor. It got me thinking, maybe we need some upaya. And it occurred to me, if we can get Elon Musk to cooperate, we might be able to get people to change their carbon emission habits.

Tesla has recently started selling a $35k Model 3... what if everyone is promised a free Tesla Model 3... but when they show up to get their Model 3, they all get a Model X instead! I think we could make a serious dent in carbon emissions!

Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.
-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

John Oliver did a piece on climate change last night and had Bill Nye the Science Guy help drive the message home:

The whole segment is pretty funny and worth a watch if you appreciate John Oliver's humor.

It reminded me of the Burning House parable from the Lotus Sutra. The TL;DR version is that this rich man's mansion is burning down, and he is having trouble getting his children out because they're all preoccupied with their games. He actually tells them, "The house is on f****** fire!", but they don't listen. So he tells them that there are three kinds of carts outside the house, and if they will just come out, he will give them each whichever they want. At this, the children come out of the house, and the rich man gives them all an ox cart beyond their wildest imagination. (You can read a translation of it here - see p. 56 . Its one of the most famous parables in the Mahayana.)

So, as funny as Bill Nye's demonstration was, will this approach to climate change work. The tone of climate change reports and news reporting has increasingly taken on the tone of, "The Planet's on F****** Fire!" and I'm not sure its getting people out of their stupor. It got me thinking, maybe we need some upaya. And it occurred to me, if we can get Elon Musk to cooperate, we might be able to get people to change their carbon emission habits.

Tesla has recently started selling a $35k Model 3... what if everyone is promised a free Tesla Model 3... but when they show up to get their Model 3, they all get a Model X instead! I think we could make a serious dent in carbon emissions!

I'm not sure if we're not already screwed due to lack of viable solutions. There's hope technology solves the problem.

Too much politics, too little wisdom and good science surround this topic.
I think, as a rule of thumb, polluting the planet is always a bad idea. That's a given. But by itself it's little more than a barren statment, almost lazy.

Lowering carbon emissions casts a problem on itself, things being as they are. Worse is that the most defenseless people are those that end up suffering more. We need to be very careful. How bad is it, what can we do and how do those measures affect us all, especially those poorer?

We need to think wisely, because so far most of what I seen being done only opens a new market for another set (or sect) of greedy people. It seems rather consensual that we are screwing this planet beyond repair, although exactly how and what we can realistically do about it without worsening the situation of billions? A less heated and more rational debate is urgently needed.

OK, let's say we abandon petroleum. And we replace it for what? Renewable energies? Good luck with that! Nuclear? It's like choosing between a rock and a hard place. So what do we do? And carbon emissions are not the only problem we face. Plastics, toxic chemicals, overpopulation, you name it, we have it.

I'm not sure if 50 years from now this planet won't be a living hell... bodhisattvas will have it hard, but if we have an once of compassion we can't avoid the problem and face the consequences for all sentient beings, now and in the near future.

A huge paradigm shift in how people live is all that will change it. It can come through us being forced to by the cataclysmic stuff one can imagine, a gradual shift to more sustainable ways of living, or both. I imagine it will be some degree of both, but can't predict the ratio, and neither can anyone else it seems.

"...if you think about how many hours, months and years of your life you've spent looking at things, being fascinated by things that have now passed away, then how wonderful to spend even five minutes looking into the nature of your own mind."

A huge paradigm shift in how people live is all that will change it. It can come through us being forced to by the cataclysmic stuff one can imagine, a gradual shift to more sustainable ways of living, or both. I imagine it will be some degree of both, but can't predict the ratio, and neither can anyone else it seems.

Yes, that is the only way, however I quite doubt it will not have its consequences. People will hate it. Plus lets not also forget that just like with wealth a huge amount of pollution is generated by a relatively small amount of businesses. The shift in behaviour of everyone will have to happen, however the question is whether the shift will come as a source of the change or as an answer to the change.

“Observing samaya involves to remain inseparable from the union of wisdom and compassion at all times, to sustain mindfulness, and to put into practice the guru’s instructions”. Garchen Rinpoche

Our goal for reducing greenhouse gases should be set on the basis of scientific knowledge, and the political debate should be about the most economically efficient way to achieve it.

Instead, 20 years have been wasted arguing about whether climate change is real, mainly due to the malign influence of conservative politicians and the fossil energy lobby. Here in Australia there was an early consensus on the facts, until it was completely destroyed by a conservative who declared the successful introduction of emissions trading as 'a great big new tax on everything'. This politician, who later went on to become prime minister, also famously compared belief in climate change to a pagan religion. (With any luck, he'll lose his seat in Parliament in the elections being held Saturday.)

But the problems are truly dire and enormous now, and I really do fear for the (very near) future.

(I also remember the grim saying by Heraclitus, 'the cattle are driven to the pasture by blows'.)

Instead, 20 years have been wasted arguing about whether climate change is real, mainly due to the malign influence of conservative politicians and the fossil energy lobby. Here in Australia there was an early consensus on the facts, until it was completely destroyed by a conservative who declared the successful introduction of emissions trading as 'a great big new tax on everything'. This politician, who later went on to become prime minister, also famously compared belief in climate change to a pagan religion.

Yeah, people don't realize how delicate modern civilization actually is. Earlier this year I actually hiked several hundred miles across my state and one of the things that really stood out to me was the way that various types of infrastructure are built and maintained as well as how resources are distributed.

Serious climate change would place enough strain on those systems that it would be easy to imagine a future where resources are more scarce, infrastructure breaks down, and those factors combined with an inhospitable environment contribute to fractures in governance that leave the world less connected and more regionalized. A significant environmental shift will reduce many places to a third world status and could even signal the end of modernity as we know it.

We'd be kicked back, in terms of social progress, maybe about 60 years, at least.

Just wanted to add some more actual factual experiences: here in Canada, we are experiencing wild weather swings - where one day it may feel like summer 15+ Celsius, and the next day back to winter again with temperature dropping below 0 with wind chill at night.
And all this in the month of May, supposedly spring!
Plus recent flooding in eastern ontario & Quebec & Maritime provinces.
Something really crazy is going with the weather in recent years, but even more so this year .

But even if one rules out the wild weather swings as "normal fluctuation", one should still be concerned about deadly air pollutions.
Remember just a few years ago about smog fog in Beijing? Not gonna be surprised if it is actually happening in more places than reported.
Good luck everyone! Peace out ~

Our goal for reducing greenhouse gases should be set on the basis of scientific knowledge, and the political debate should be about the most economically efficient way to achieve it.

That sentence is really great.

Instead, 20 years have been wasted arguing about whether climate change is real, mainly due to the malign influence of conservative politicians and the fossil energy lobby. Here in Australia there was an early consensus on the facts, until it was completely destroyed by a conservative who declared the successful introduction of emissions trading as 'a great big new tax on everything'. This politician, who later went on to become prime minister, also famously compared belief in climate change to a pagan religion. (With any luck, he'll lose his seat in Parliament in the elections being held Saturday.)

I think the debate about it being real, if it's due to human activity and how fast is it happening is worth having... among scientists. It should go on until we know better what is actually happening.

Maybe now you guys are left thinking "I can't believe this guy doesn't believe in climate change". My beliefs would be irrelevant, and I'll explain. I do like my analogies, so keep up with me for a little while before calling me a denier!
So, where I live (Portugal, Algarve), we have a lot of beautiful beaches. Many of them are surrounded by amazing cliffs. Those cliffs, on occasion, crumble. Maybe a bit here one year, another bit there another year and so on. Natural erosion and the type of rock. Nothing big. However, if someone is having a little sun bellow when a portion of the cliff goes down, it's almost certain death. So, what was done? Beyond placing warnings, some areas were actually closed. Some didn't crumbled so far, but the government acted AS IF they could crumble at any moment, thus protecting lives. In some areas the fact is that rocks fell. Were those areas opened to the public and people would have died. It happened in the past and still happens when people ignore the signs.

So, by now you guessed my point. Very early on, when some climatologists warned about the possibility of global warming and its dreadful consequences, that alone should have prompted a response by the governments. The consequences expected were so hard that action should have been taken AS IF it would actually happen. The details would be figured along the way. Having some time available, the measures to eradicate fossil fuel dependence would have had less consequences for the poorer. In the end we would have given an enormous step by getting rid of such dependence. Happy ending, global warning theory being accurate or otherwise. Using fossil fuels to generate energy has many undesirable side effects even without climate changes. So, it would have always been a smart move to overcome such dependence.

What happened?
Politics and greed got in the way.
Obviously the owners of fortunes made on fossil fuels weren't happy, so they did all they could to cast doubt (from hiring scientists, spokesmen, politicians you name it). Let's try to milk the cow for as long as possible.

On the other side, opportunists saw a way to create a new tax. All governments love new ways of having money coming in, the more so when they are incompetent managing public money. The truly dire effects of climate change weren't (and aren't) still being felt in all their devastating power, and those idiots (sorry, but they are) started milking the CO2 cow. Most people, not really aware of what was going on, knew one thing: that global warming stuff "that nobody could really feel", was harming their finances. That, they knew. So a fair amount of public resistance was generated and it's alive and kicking (Trump won the elections in the States, for goodness sake).

It got worse. Not by scientists fault, but because of ideologues, politicians and lobbies. To a sane hypothesis, a lot of stuff, unnecessary stuff, was attached. Liberals on one side, conservatives on the other, most sharing two common denominators: knowing jack and shit about the subject.

A lot of propaganda was generated from both sides. Sometimes inventing stuff, others warping data and worse, using truth to lie. Too much hype was generated about a subject that needed to be debated with the utmost gravity. Epithets appealing to emotion were created from both sides and a subject that should have brought humanity together became a more and more divisive matter. From one side, if you "believe" in climate change, you're surely a socialist or a communist. From the other, if you require more evidence, you're a denier or are in big oil paying role... numbers were made up and, unfortunately, listen well, it became a sect like subject. You're either with us or against us. This sort of mentality was immediately exploited by both sides, thus terms like "pagan religion", "climate change sect", "deniers", "big oil lackeys" were thrown around, often in unjust ways. It got insane. Prophecies (note I'm not writing predictions) were made. Doom and gloom. Didn't happen. We're still here. The world isn't yet a blazing hell as we were told. Conclusion? It's bullshit (cuz I wanna drive my big ass car). So, now we change the name. From global warning we now call it climate changes. Sure... pretty much covers anything. Bang, big oil lobby points that out! That there were reasons that can possibly explain why the outcome are these extreme events instead of global warning matters little. Now those who don't believe climate change theory claim that the most hurt will be the poor (they are right because governments didn't react on time mainly due to their malign influence!), undermining the bases of the left. So liberals fabricate numbers like 97% of scientists agreeing with this theory (the way that number was arrived at is utterly dishonest), and call it a fact. The weather goes crazy, as it happened so many times in the past: it's climate change! Doom and gloom! Conservatives see their game and do their own: cognitive bias! You see what you want to see! Big oil lobby: oh the poor, da poooorr will suffer if we stop! (as if they give a crap). It's insane how this got completely out of hand.

The problem? Fossil fuel dependence is bad. Climate changes may be happening. This can be irreversible.

Governments should have acted AS IF. Too much was a stake to risk otherwise. It didn't confirm? Great! At least overcame the dependence of a finite, extremely polluting resource. Well done!
We avoided it? Fantastic! Cleaner world for everyone.

But the problems are truly dire and enormous now, and I really do fear for the (very near) future.

So do I. We desperately need a technological breakthrough. Other measures are mostly palliative? Why? Because 20 years or more were lost.

(I also remember the grim saying by Heraclitus, 'the cattle are driven to the pasture by blows'.)

Unless something unexpected happens, I'm afraid that will happen to us as a specie.

See what I mean?
Climate change is nowadays used to support or dismiss other agendas, some already divisive for themselves as such.

The thing is that you are probably right. The process which allows for such an extensive meat availability is disastrous for the environment. But this is mostly a first world problem as in poor countries meat is still sort of a luxury. And those guys need meat as it's not easy to substitute it under certain lifestyles and bodily conditions. So if vegetarianism advocates start banging this drum, guess who they'll screw first? Those that lack meat, not those who eat too much of it (who don't give a rat's ass about what vegetarians, let alone vegans, say anyway).

So yes, people are ruining their health because they eat (way) too much meat. Let's leave it at that EVEN if in fact it worsens our carbon footprint. It's by far not the main problem and it will only serve to muddle the waters.

To a subject that instead of bringing humanity together, as it should, created deep crevasses in society, we shouldn't attach other divisive subjects, at least if we want to see anything done.

I believe you place great importance on your diet. Well, most people couldn't care less. If you doubt it, just look at the size of companies like Coca-Cola and Mc Donald's.
So, if beyond taxing carbon emissions you now impose dietary restrictions, that's a sure way to create further problems, even if that article is 100% accurate.

Yes, this happens. Climate change is the thing of the moment. Many people associate other agendas with it, either in accordance or not, depending on the audience.
This is a really bad idea...

The idea that the things that cause climate change, is “some other agenda” is nonsensical.

That's exactly what someone with an agenda would say.
I guess the fact that your most active topic being "the great vegetarian debate", where you advocate a vegetarian diet is just a coincidence.

I won't repeat myself. You have my arguments above. You are entirely free to disregard them.

Best wishes!

It’s not a coincidence that animal agriculture contribute significantly to climate change and discussing that should be forbidden? Like I said that’s just nonsensical

otherwise we will derail the topic.

Unlikely as climate change and the things that cause it and the things that they can be done to stop it, precisely is the topic

I'm really sory to say it, but this is the problem with militant vegetarians. You don't listen.

Implementing the necessary and most impacting changes necessary to, hopefully, reverse the climate situation is hard enough without adding further completely secondary factors that happen to be controversial by themselves. Even if everyone became vegetarian overnight, as long as we deppend on fossil fuels we're screwed.

The best bet is finding new energy sources and overcome our dependence on fossil fuels, not putting everyone on a veggies diet.

That you use climate changes to promote your preferred dietary choice just muddles the subject.

Now, if you were a devoted meat eater and you said exactly the same you did, I wouldn't say you had an agenda.

However, what it seems to me is that you USE climate changes to promote your cherished ideals. So do many others and this has been a problem.

I'm not saying these ideas are wrong (though some are). I'm saying it doesn't help if those ideas are already divisive by themselves!

That's exactly what someone with an agenda would say.
I guess the fact that your most active topic being "the great vegetarian debate", where you advocate a vegetarian diet is just a coincidence.

I won't repeat myself. You have my arguments above. You are entirely free to disregard them.

Best wishes!

It’s not a coincidence that animal agriculture contribute significantly to climate change and discussing that should be forbidden? Like I said that’s just nonsensical

otherwise we will derail the topic.

Unlikely as climate change and the things that cause it and the things that they can be done to stop it, precisely is the topic

I'm really sory to say it, but this is the problem with militant vegetarians. You don't listen.

Implementing the necessary and most impacting changes necessary to, hopefully, reverse the climate situation is hard enough without adding further completely secondary factors that happen to be controversial by themselves. Even if everyone became vegetarian overnight, as long as we deppend on fossil fuels we're screwed.

The best bet is finding new energy sources and overcome our dependence on fossil fuels, not putting everyone on a veggies diet.

That you use climate changes to promote your preferred dietary choice just muddles the subject.

Now, if you were a devoted meat eater and you said exactly the same you did, I wouldn't say you had an agenda.

However, what it seems to me is that you USE climate changes to promote your cherished ideals. So do many others and this has been a problem.

I'm not saying these ideas are wrong (though some are). I'm saying it doesn't help if those ideas are already divisive by themselves!

Here is Bill Nye himself saying to eat less meat. He must have some secret agenda. No, he doesn't....that's nonsensical. This is climate change 101.

One should not kill any living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should one incite any other to kill. Do never injure any being, whether strong or weak, in this entire universe!

It’s not a coincidence that animal agriculture contribute significantly to climate change and discussing that should be forbidden? Like I said that’s just nonsensical

Unlikely as climate change and the things that cause it and the things that they can be done to stop it, precisely is the topic

I'm really sory to say it, but this is the problem with militant vegetarians. You don't listen.

Implementing the necessary and most impacting changes necessary to, hopefully, reverse the climate situation is hard enough without adding further completely secondary factors that happen to be controversial by themselves. Even if everyone became vegetarian overnight, as long as we deppend on fossil fuels we're screwed.

The best bet is finding new energy sources and overcome our dependence on fossil fuels, not putting everyone on a veggies diet.

That you use climate changes to promote your preferred dietary choice just muddles the subject.

Now, if you were a devoted meat eater and you said exactly the same you did, I wouldn't say you had an agenda.

However, what it seems to me is that you USE climate changes to promote your cherished ideals. So do many others and this has been a problem.

I'm not saying these ideas are wrong (though some are). I'm saying it doesn't help if those ideas are already divisive by themselves!

Here is Bill Nye himself saying to eat less meat. He must have some secret agenda. No, he doesn't....that's nonsensical. This is climate change 101.

Bill Nye's most active topic isn't "the great vegetarian debate".
You really aren't getting my point, are you? Maybe it's my fault.
Btw, nothing of what he said solves the problem. It marginally helps, but that's it. Unless we find new energy sources, we're done for. There will be no public transportations to use, agriculture will only be viable under extremely controled circumstances, electronics will become a thing of the past. He got walking on foot right though. Probably walking to flee or fight. It's that serious. It won't be the weather that finishes us. It will be war. What do you think will happen when the world starts really going awol? Recycling? It will be unprecedented war and that will be the end of us. But it's a kids show. Those things can't be said.

Last edited by Dechen Norbu on Tue May 14, 2019 5:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sure. Oil companies also mean well.
The point isn't if eating less meat helps. Probably.
The point is people using climate change to promote their own agendas that, at most, tangentially relate with it.

There's only one thing that will solve the problem: new efficient energy sources. All the rest is palliative.

Climatologists know this for ages. But as long as there are other interests meddling, the real problem isn't addressed.

As long as a tax on CO2 generates profit, CO2 will be released. As long as there's profit by taxing plastic bags, plastic bags won't disappear. As long as there's a tax on tobacco, cigarettes will be around, and so on and so forth.. Don't give them ideas about meat or soon they'll devise a new tax on it and people will still eat it.

As long as people keep being dishonest about this, the problem won't be solved.

Last edited by Dechen Norbu on Tue May 14, 2019 5:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.